Is the term “toxic masculinity” useful?

Is there a chance that we can get some definitions for things set before arguments ensue for a discussion? It would be great to be speaking on the same level and not have to explain that arguing semantics is not conducive to mutual understanding. Semantics don't make the argument. One's personal feelings about the way something has been termed has nothing to do with the actual definition.

For starters, what does toxic masculinity mean to you? Why? We've already gone over why a lot of you don't like the term or the way it's formed, but why does it mean something different to you?

What does 'the left' mean to you? Why?

What does feminism mean to you? Why?

How much do each of these meanings for you differ from the actual, true definition of the terms?

I think that if we can come to an agreed understanding of what each means, we can have a more meaningful conversation about the topic at hand.

Arisaig wrote:

Luthien wrote: I see no insults, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

DeboraJ wrote: Sorry Locksley, but I am exiting this discussion because it can't seem to stick to facts over the butthurt opinions of some.

At least from what I can find. But I think it best to drop the issue, its been addressed, continue with this conversation. Its been a wonderful read, if albeit I've not contributed to it.

Ah, but is it possible that some are misreading the issuance of the term butthurt towards the individual, rather than the opinions or the feelings that the person has exhibited?

DeboraJ wrote: There's no "debate" on the usefulness of the term. Debating the term instead of debating the problem is just plain distraction from the problem.

When something is not open for debate, it means only that you accept it despite any evidence to the contrary pointed out to you. It means that you have closed off your mind to any rational discussion of its validity, that there is literally no reasoning with you on the subject. That is what debate is: reasoning. Ideally it is done for the purpose of uncovering the truth (but even the definition of truth is open for debate). No philosopher in history got anywhere by positing that their ideas were not open for debate. I urge you to reconsider your position, not for any preference for or against the term, but in terms of your openness to the arguments, opinions, ideas, and morals of others around you.

ren wrote: Things which are naturally occurring are not toxic to their natural habitat.

Dammit, perhaps I should have killed my father and mated with my mother and sister like I saw my chickens do!!! May nature guide you is a dodgy mantra to heed too much IMO.

Naturally occurring things are often toxic, and while the strongest things are left standing in nature, they will either move to a new habitat when they run out of resources or find some balance where they are. And that is just non-human animals.... look at the deforestation in much of the settled world - unless of course humans using wood for fire and shelter is not natural. Are humans part of nature? If so what of our social structures like civilization!? Where is the line drawn between free will and ones 'nature'? Maybe humans cannot be viewed as part of nature, as we certainly have a higher order of capability in altering our habitat - but everything alters its habitat. Defining whether its toxic has to be on the context of either its starting position or its system rules, probably - to associate some concept of 'health'. In a civilization its quite easy for there are rules and expectations. For physical health its real easy, but in mental health it gets more messy to work with.

And so the concept of civilization is real easy to take for granted, but it might not be without a cost, because its a participatory phenomena. It's because of that hard work by others that one can feel like they are being clever by not participating or operating outside of the rules or against the stream, but sidling by outside of it might feel like side slipping problems - but the the relative matrix (potentials from it) of what your missing is actually moving upwards - so it's in effect stagnation or retrodgrade motion to try and be counter-culture too much for no other reason. Do it enough and one tends to find oneself falling out the bottom and getting eaten by the critters that have been there longer. And I'm speaking from personal experience in some regard.

So yea, don't get me wrong.... I've had quite an unconventional path through life - but not on purpose, I just happen to think that a lot of society is dodgy
So I don't mean to suggest society or civilization in its entirety is good or proper, but nature is not a good alternative in my opinion.

It''s intrinsic and essential, but raw, and there is only so much that can be done with raw materials unless one has the structure to refine it. So I'd say don't copy nature or others, but make your own. Use what is provided for your own reasons but don't ignore the reality of where those things come from, as I think we are all part of nature, and that nature is just the participation of our essence among other participants and that viewing as much of the other as equal affords the greatest range of potentials to self then pretending oneself or any one group is better or has its particular capabilities as representative of some compass to right. Might is not righteous, its pompous, IMO.

Luthien wrote: For starters, what does toxic masculinity mean to you? Why? We've already gone over why a lot of you don't like the term or the way it's formed, but why does it mean something different to you?

"Toxic masculinity" is a culture weapon. Its a set of ideas deliberately organized and presented so as to misrepresent masculinity and to implicitly associate it with toxicity in the general cultural consciousness. That is the definition of toxic masculinity. Those who use this or that example to defend use of the term (such as boys not being allowed to cry or whatever else) are seeing only the trees of individual selling points and missing the forest of the ulterior motives driving the overall movement.

TM is one of the numerous intellectual weapons of the radical left which, in tandem with one another, are meant to displace the existing power structure of North America in particular and western civilization in general.
Sounds crazy, right? Lol i know.

Toxic Masculinity is one of many culture weapons which have been put into play by a (temporary, though they dont all realize it) intellectual affiliation of various radical activists. Particularly, Marxists, social constructivists, certain strains of feminism, and race and gender activists. What we have is a collection of various groups who have been working together under the agreed upon premise that western civilization is a fundamentally oppressive and exploitative force in humanity.

They identify whites as the drivers of western civilization, particularly straight white men (but regardless of your sex, gender, political allegiance etc, if youre white then youd best not think this is going to work out well for you if they get their way). Seeing themselves as victims of the white cis patriarchy, they are collaborating their theories and activist strategies in order to displace their enemy, the traditional (white male) power structure of the western world.

The basic strategy is this:
1) associate whiteness with oppression
2) associate masculinity with oppression
3) associate traditional gender roles and "straightness" with oppression
4) overthrow the oppressors and take over the world!
(you must say the last one in your best Pinky and the Brain voice)

Theyre not after true equality, though that is what they claim; they are out to displace the "power and privilege" of white people in general, and white men especially. Which wont really be too great for white women if it actually works out. Or white trans people. Or white gay people. If youre white, youre a racist oppressor and you need to be overthrown. In fact you must help with the overthrowing. You are not merely invited to betray your whiteness, you are morally obligated to do it: thats the narrative.

What is Whiteness?


The Problem of Whiteness



Patriarchy, white privilege, cultural appropriation, and the oppression of trans persons by the cis gendered are the biggest cultural hitters so far in terms of driving the oppression narrative into the collective conciousness. Who knows what will be next?

Its not that these concepts dont have any truth to them, its that they are baised and mixed truths, presented in a calculated way in order to achieve specific social aims. Its kind of Intelligence Campaign, a Psy-Op. The best deceivers use as much truth as they can in order to lead their marks to an incorrect conclusion.

You might not see where marxism fits in. Basically they hate capitalism and wealth. Despite the fact that Marxist doctrine has killled millions and millions of people on multiple continents, Marxists still exist lol (mind boggling in and of itself) and they still want to overthrow the western system, which (despite its admitted flaws and inequalities) has brought a huge percentage of the world out of abject poverty and into general affluence...including YOU and me.

My suspicion is that the closer these groups get to genuinely overthrowing the current system, the more they will begin to devour each other. Ultimately id guess the marxists would win, since theyve had waaaay more practice at real genocide and cultural "purging" (aka killing political enemies) than the others.

How much do each of these meanings for you differ from the actual, true definition of the terms?

As far as im concerned, my meaning IS the actual, true meaning and it varies SIGNIFICANTLY from the publicly presented one.

OB1Shinobi wrote:
As far as im concerned, my meaning IS the actual, true meaning and it varies SIGNIFICANTLY from the publicly presented one.

Yea but how to you react to that? Do you attack the abusive use of discriminative principles or do you attack the abuse of discrimination for it in part is being abused by some and has the potential for abuse. The dominant group will understandably defer to the later, because it over-reaches the problem in their favour and is less work. And the oppressed will favor the former because it targets the problem. The abuser only has the former to work with though, and so we sometimes end up with the situation that the oppressed and the abuser can be using the same toolkit at times. For me I would rather focus my efforts just on the abuser for abuse, and not have my scope set too wide when it comes to these sorts of issues, which effect peoples wellbeing and fundamental human rights. But yea its hard work. People distorting the picture from any number of angles whether they be well intentioned or not is not really helpful and actually does serve to feed a cycle of hate which serves the abusers case in an unnecessary way, as it makes their target audience look defensive and old fashioned, which just feeds into a whole new narrative which is entirely not related to the original topic (if let to run escalate). Anyhow that is just how it looks to me. I do not doubt there are people out there abusing these terms to try and undermine successful individuals and groups, but that they really only get attention when anyone pays attention to them, in effect they are not the real game. Unless your talking about the Gerasimov Doctrine, in which case anything is possible

Now I wonder if the use of the term 'toxic masculinity' really has use in the context of public forum, such as this one, or if it would be better to keep the term sheltered within academia. Also, why not call it 'toxic meming'? That is, the carrying forward of non-genetic behaviors and ideas that are toxic to present and future generations. Of course, I haven't found this term out there on the web, but it could be a better way to phrase it for those who are sensitive to the words being discussed. I think that the term should have been 'toxic masculine behaviors', but of course, it doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily as what is prescribed.

The definition I found is more in line with what Debora wrote: "Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men." There are plenty of ways in which to bond over a shared trait--that of being masculine. I think that's what it comes down to through my own thought stream. The toxic behaviors that are exhibited to show future generations how to be men should probably be tossed out. There are healthy ways to bond with other men that aren't bad for society or themselves. It's why I think that the boy scouts is a good idea, as well as typical male bonding efforts that don't involve rape, or harming women, or harming other men (without pre-agreed terms and conditions), or anything that aims to benefit from harming anyone at all. The same could be said about others from other groups, but it's predominantly present within the male group. I think that the harmful behaviors and ideas that are memed are a result of PTSD from prior generations abusing the current generation, thus continuously perpetuating the harmful behaviors and ideas.

See, this is why I think that gender studies is a valid discipline. It allows one to dive into the deeper aspects of these things; and, toxic masculinity is just one of the many things studied within that particular area of study. There are classes about these things for a reason and it has little to do with one's political ideologies. One could very well graduate with a degree in gender studies and be from 'the right'. So, my proposal is to just leave this discussion for academia, since that's where it occurs more often than within the public sphere. I mean, that is, unless you're a masochist. Nothing wrong with kinks.

Adder wrote: Yea but how to you react to that? Do you attack the abusive use of discriminative principles or do you attack the abuse of discrimination for it in part is being abused by some and has the potential for abuse. The dominant group will understandably defer to the later, because it over-reaches the problem in their favour and is less work. And the oppressed will favor the former because it targets the problem. The abuser only has the former to work with though, and so we sometimes end up with the situation that the oppressed and the abuser can be using the same toolkit at times. For me I would rather focus my efforts just on the abuser for abuse,

First is that I would not frame the broad cultural dialogue in terms of abusers and abused. That itself perpetuates the cycles of violence, resentment, and shame. Its also highly inaccurate, as- whether or not you feel women or blacks or trans people or whoever are being abused and if so, by whom EXACTLY, and to what degree -its a very small percentage of the over-all white population who act in such a way as to warrant the label of "abuser".

You have to isolate and be very specific about what problems are faced by specific populations. The easiest to outline would be black Americans: roughly we can say its poverty and police brutality.. but really its poverty. ALL of the problems associated with being black in America (including police brutality) are intimately tied to the high incidence of multi-generational poverty and will be alleviated relative to a general rise in black affluence.

For a long time, there were solid institutional barriers to wealth placed upon black populations. Deliberately limited employment options, exorbitant home insurace costs and interest rates on certain types of loans WHEN THEY COULD EVEN GET LOANS. All kinds of Jim Crow inequalities.

Not to mention that schools get funded by property taxes so if youre in the poorest districts, you get to go to the least funded schools. Which is a real problem even today, but its properly seen as an economic problem more than a racial one.

While there are still some very strong cultural obstacles to general rising of black affluence, the official institutional barriers have been falling down steadily for the last 60 yrs. Much harder to overcome are the factors associated with being born in an extremely poor community, particularly to a single mother in an area with high rates of drugs and violence.

The solution to the disproportionality of blacks in the criminal justice system is not MERELY for police to stop targeting blacks, but (MORE IMPORTANTLY) for poor blacks to stay away from drugs and crime, and for more blacks to join the police force. How you convince people born in a high-crime, high-drug area with a lot of violence and very few legitimate job opportunities to stay away from drugs and crime and focus on homework instead is anybody's guess. Or to join the ranks of the people they see (sometimes rightly) as their abusers.

But difficult or no, the "simple solution" to black poverty is two or three generations of black children graduating college. Thats really it: if 30% of all black children born in 2010 get a college degree, and in turn see to it that all of their children also get a college degree, we would see the first blooming of genuine economic equality between blacks and whites. (I made that number up-- i dont know what the right number is but i do believe there is one).

Its not really just about college degrees, but theres no other single factor that i know of that correlates more consistently with long term economic success. The REAL point is that blacks need to get into the job market, especially at the higher income levels, and degrees do that. All the barriers you can list can be overcome.

Black lawyers, black medical professionals, black people in engineering and finance and real estate, law enforcement (not saying LE is high income level) and especially in government: thats the solution. Again, theres no single thing that i can think of that would make this more likely than increased college completion rates.

So the question is "how do we get black kids to graduate from college?" Answer that youll solve racism in America, though it will still take several generations.

Honestly i dont think you even have to look at it as "black poverty" so much as just "poverty". How do we get the poorest kids to graduate college? In addition to college, we need to make it as easy as possible for entrepreneurs to open small businesses. Banks dont tend to see poor people as a good investment and that reasonable, but if theres anything that "we" need to do, its find effective ways to reward personal initiative.

This kind of thinking; being as specific as possible about exactly which problems to concentrate on and understanding that the solutions are often going to be multi-generational approaches which focus on enhancing the competency and capabilities of specific groups, rather than taking away the privileges of specific groups is the correct way to look at it imo. Campaigning that one group is oppressive as a a consequence of their birth and that another is being oppressed as a consequence of theirs is making the issues worse because it doesnt actually FIX anything and it incites more hostility between everyone.

Luthien wrote: Now I wonder if the use of the term 'toxic masculinity' really has use in the context of public forum, such as this one, or if it would be better to keep the term sheltered within academia. Also, why not call it 'toxic meming'? That is, the carrying forward of non-genetic behaviors and ideas that are toxic to present and future generations.

I like the term "meming" a lot more. I think its more accurate than "masculinity" but it doesnt single out men so i dont think that the activists would accept it.

Of course, I haven't found this term out there on the web, but it could be a better way to phrase it for those who are sensitive to the words being discussed. I think that the term should have been 'toxic masculine behaviors', but of course, it doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily as what is prescribed.

The toxic behaviors that are exhibited to show future generations how to be men should probably be tossed out. There are healthy ways to bond with other men that aren't bad for society or themselves. It's why I think that the boy scouts is a good idea, as well as typical male bonding efforts that don't involve rape, or harming women, or harming other men (without pre-agreed terms and conditions), or anything that aims to benefit from harming anyone at all.

Me and my friends didnt go around raping women. No doubt there are those who do but my guess is they are the minority. Which is one if my compaints about TM thats more specific to the theory as its presented (as opposed to my resistance to it on the broader grounds of its being entrenched in a larger movement) which is that i dont find it relevant to my own experience.
In the time that i had my actual father in my life, he tried to teach me that masculinity was about working hard and being responsible. A good man is strong, ethical, and fair minded. Capable of violence but not enamored of it. All of the stereotypes that are tossed around seem simplistic to me. Just because you can find some examples of any of them, doesnt mean thats what masculinity actually is or how its taught.

My dad definitely had some "toxic masculinity" issues and didnt always live up to what he tried to teach, but the ideals of manhood that he attempted to instill into me were for the most part, very positive. I see lack of strong, responsible father figures as a larger social problem than "toxic masculinity". No one needs to be ground down with an endless litany of ways they could be (and proably are) a horrible person. What we need are one or two close relatives to act as living examples of how to be a good person. The explosion of single mother households puts boys in the situation of having to figure out manhood by trial and error. That desnt always work out too well.

I think that the harmful behaviors and ideas that are memed are a result of PTSD from prior generations abusing the current generation, thus continuously perpetuating the harmful behaviors and ideas.

Yes, i think this can happen.

See, this is why I think that gender studies is a valid discipline. It allows one to dive into the deeper aspects of these things; and, toxic masculinity is just one of the many things studied within that particular area of study. There are classes about these things for a reason and it has little to do with one's political ideologies. One could very well graduate with a degree in gender studies and be from 'the right'. So, my proposal is to just leave this discussion for academia, since that's where it occurs more often than within the public sphere. I mean, that is, unless you're a masochist. Nothing wrong with kinks.

The problem with gender studies is that its driven more by ideology than inquiry and theyve entrenched themselves in worldview of opressors and victims. Plus the honest reality about it is that we dont know to what degree gender differences are biiological vs cultural. Gender studies has adopted the social constructivist vidw that its all cultural aka "socially constructed" and has no real basis in our physiology, which seems prettry irrational to me. You can look at men and women and see we are quite different. It doesnt mean one is BETTER than the other.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17119/


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/14/gender-studies-male-blaming-bias

OB1Shinobi wrote: First is that I would not frame the broad cultural dialogue in terms of abusers and abused. That itself perpetuates the cycles of violence, resentment, and shame. Its also highly inaccurate, as- whether or not you feel women or blacks or trans people or whoever are being abused and if so, by whom EXACTLY, and to what degree -its a very small percentage of the over-all white population who act in such a way as to warrant the label of "abuser". ... snip.

My use of abusing group, oppressed group and dominant group were just ad-hoc labels to get my point across in reply to how you define it... which on reading back I didn't quite get right anyway. The context was explanatory enough I hope, but my sentence of "Do you attack the abusive use of discriminative principles or do you attack the abuse of discrimination for it in part is being abused by some and has the potential for abuse. " was meant to be more like "Do you attack the abusive use of discriminative principles or do you attack the critic of discrimination just because it in part is being abused by some and/or has the potential for abuse.". I dunno if that is right either, as if I knew what I was saying then I wouldn't be pushing myself hard enough :silly:

Because I guess, while we use different definitions of what toxic masculinity is, we are probably not even discussing the same thing. As you say we have to be specific about the problem, well for one side the definition of toxic masculinity is that process of being more specific.
It's just seemingly not relevant to turn that into something else just to argue against it.
The only place I thought this discussion should go was what is toxic that is being associated as masculine, which is exactly the type of discussion this label is meant to produce I imagine... and it would serve to highlite that not only can men or women exhibit it, but that it also has negative impacts on both men and women. Such that it is not anti-male in the slightest, it just happens that most of the perpetrators of it are and most of the victims of it are not.... but not 'all'. So as I see it its not an attack on all men, or masculinity. In fact its a good platform to make masculine more masculine!!!